Of Periodizations and Paradigms: The Fifties in Comparative Perspective

PARTI THE BIG PICTURE OF PERIODIZATIONS AND PARADIGMS: THE FIFTIES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ________PAULO ANTONIO PARANAGUÂ________ Paris, France Whether or not it is explicitly delineated, periodization in film history, always a very complex issue, shapes our views, even unconsciously. Can the 1950s be considered a distinct historical period, different from those which precede or follow? If so, when does this period start, and when does it end? Let's begin by looking at some of the foremost historians of Latin American film. Emilio García Riera avoids the problem in both the original and revised versions of his indispensible Historia documental (1969-1978, 1992-97), since he proceeds year by year. His Historia del cine mexicano (1986) provides no explanation as to why, after 1941, each chapter covers a five-year period, although we suspect that these groupings are motivated by the presidential sexenios (six-year terms). Moisés Viñas (1987) coincides with García Riera about the industrialization period (1936 to 1940), the mythical "época de oro" (1941 to 1945), and the post-war phase (up to 1950). From then on, however, Viñas adopts a different periodization, viewing 1951-1958 as the beginning of the crisis of Mexican production and discerning a subsequent period that starts with the presidential regime of Adolfo López Mateos and continues until 1967. He marks the next period as beginning with the political turmoil of 1968, when widespread militancy was quashed by the government-ordered massacre at Tlatelolco square, and ending in 1976, the last year of Luis Echeverria's presidential term. Viñas's last period goes beyond the López Portillo government, probably simply because the book covers until 1985. Eduardo de la Vega Alfaro (1991) considers that the crisis period covers two sexenios, those of Ruiz Cortines and López Mateos, that is, 1953-1964, with the following period belonging to the sinister Diaz Ordaz. If the Echeverría period starts for him in 1970, it is because Rodolfo Echeverría took over the Banco Cinematográfico one year before his brother Luis occupied the presidential residence at Los Pinos. Like his colleagues, Eduardo de la Vega sticks to the presidential rhythm in his periodization of Mexican film history. One might conclude that the Mexican cinema's dependency on the State is so strong that the overlap between political and cinematic histories is inevitable. 01998 NUEVO TEXTO CRITICO Vol. XI No. 21/22, Enero a Diciembre 1998 32__________________________________________PAULO ANTONIO PARANAGUA Turning to Argentine film history, according to Jorge Miguel Couselo and his collaborators (1992), the first sound period ends by 1947 and the following continues to 1956. In fact, the 1947-56 period corresponds to Peronist intervention and seems to start when Raul Alejandro Apold became the official boss of the film industry. For these authors, the Nuevo Cine period ends in 1968, which corresponds to a new stage of state intervention in the film industry. The 1968-1983 period embraces two military dictatorships , separated by a brief democratic spring in 1973-74; the most recent period begins with Argentina's return to democracy at the end of 1983. Ricardo Bedoya's periodization, in his excellent history of Peruvian cinema (1992), conforms to the evolution of local production. After the silent period, the sound era's initial first period spans the thirties until the decline of Amauta Films. The forties, fifties and sixties are a single period, the crossing of the desert, so to speak. A new era starts for Bedoya in 1972, when President Velasco Alvarado's "decreto ley" stimulates the production of short films and favors the appearence of a new generation of filmmakers. Considering this heterogeneous proliferation of national perspectives, I could go on indefinitely, giving examples from different countries to demonstrate the difficulties of establishing a periodization valid on a continental scale. Just as critics have often been enlisted to promote and even publicize films, historians have frequently commited themselves to dignifying local film production by elaborating a national tradition. Jean-Claude Bernardet (1995), one of Brazil's foremost film authorities, and probably the first in Latin America to consider the methodological aspects of film history, has demonstrated the ideological and voluntaristic underpinnings...